1. From personal experience, I have submitted a game for analysis by the chess.com computer to find a blunder or two, 2 or 3 mistakes, and a few inaccuracies. However, when I put that exact same game into Fritz, it finds at least a dozen positions where I could have made a better move. To call something perfect based on the chess.com computer does not really mean much.

2. Chess.com's computer runs at about 2500 playing strength, the bare minimum for a grandmaster. You would need a computer of at least 2800-2900 playing strength to be able to call any game "perfect" -- assuming the computer agreed with every move you made.

 

3. Many doubts have been drawn on chess.com's computer analysis' positional and strategic understanding. When there is not a clear tactic involved, it can be kind of sketchy. In fact, you should (at least I have) notice that most moves it claims as a mistake, inaccuracy, etc. is from a tactics point of view.

I could have gone along the path of many other commenters that perfection in chess cannot be claimed because of mood, playing style, etc. but I feel that point has been argued enough. In short, it seems pointless and arrogant for you, or pretty much anyone, to claim they played a perfect chess game.

A perfect game will eventually end in a draw, since there will not be any mistakes by either side. Probably what is meant here is that the best option was selected in every position after every move of the opponent. However, that is debatable too since there is a myriad of moves and combinations which can lead to a win.

Cpawn,

I agree with you that chess is too cpmplicated to ever say that a "perfect" game has been played.  However, it is FUN to analyze a completed game that you are proud of AND find that Chess.com at the 2500 level cannot find a slip!  In my mind, a "perfect" game is one where I have extended my "opening book" all the way to the end of the game ! This means that I want to repeat the position on the board after every single one of my moves! 

Of course,  Rybka might find a mate in 37, but that has NOTHING to do with human chess!  Also, Magnus Carlson might never play this variation of the Ruy Lopez!  So what?  I want my students to each develop their own style which means selecting their own opening variations to specialize in.  I want them to develop their chess skills so that they can play a "perfect game" according to Chess.com at 2500!

Sincerely,  Your chess teacher,  Sam

Mark Buehrle just pitched a perfect game for the White Sox.

My 1.e4 e5, and then white lost on time, was also close to "perfect" since I made no significant error.. Havn't tried it in a computer analyze yet though...

The words "chess" and "perfection" does not sound good together in my ears, since the human aspect (playing style, mood, instinct etc. ) doesnt come in fixed maesures. When you rely on a machine to tell you if your game was "perfect", how can she know your personality? Personally I would prefer the words beautyful, exciting or fantasyfull instead about a game, and what computer can measure that? Magnus Carlsen failed this summer in a game, to see mate in 37 moves, or something like that.. (Thats what the rybka-gang was kibbitzing anyway..) But it doesn't make him less in my eyes. And if you have two possibilities in a game : one, shorter, sacrificing, intriguing and another safer, longer, duller which is the "right" way to victory?

By the way I liked your game very much.

I dont think a "perfect game" exists.  And just because a computer says no mistakes were made doesnt make it a perect game.  As long as the human element is involved it will never be perfect.

bondiggity ,

31. ... Nb4 is a reasonable move, but look at the spatial advantage that white has.  I do not claim a win here, but I claim that white is better!

Sincerely,  Sam

RC_Woods ,

I do not claim to be a computer.  I do not care what Rybka or Fritz says about my game because I ran the post-mortem with Chess.com .  If I had lost, I would PROBABLY use Fritz to examine certain positions, but I am trying to match Capablanca's play, not some stupid computer!  Computers are very weak at correspondence chess and end-game play where the position is not in their positional tables!

I am trying to teach my young students here how to analyze middle-game positions , not how to study a Fritz read-out!  I want my students to use databases and computers to develop their opening strategy, but eventually they have to analyze a position!

I use Chess.com as a tool to analyze my won games to protect the integrity of my analysis in case I had made a slip.

Respectfully,  Sam

After the end of the game, I really don't see how white has anything significant after 31...Nb4. 

Without pretending to be a better player (I'm definitely not) I want to say that I find it strange that you base your article around playing 'perfectly' according to the chess.com engine.

I just don't think you can attach too much value to this result. Yes, it means your game was free of obvious blunders. But I don't think the search horizon is deep enough to even say for sure that it was free of accuracies. Below is a game analyzed by the chess.com engine that should prove my point.

When you give the game to rybka or fritz for serious analysis and either of these engines conclude (with a reasonable search depth per move) that you played only best (or near-to-best) moves (which may of course be the case as well) - then that's more reason to be proud!

Best, R.C.

 

shuttlechess92 ,

I thank you very much for your comparison to Capablanca's play .  I consider that a great compliment.  I learned so much about positional play and end-game theory from the great Cuban's games.  In some games, I really try to mimic his thinking and style.  Rarely, I succeed and when I do, the result is an amazing game, worthy of study.

I do not discuss the theory behind moves that are in the master database because I expect my students to use databases in their opening preparation and their correspondence play.  I am tutoring several young players here at Chess.com and trying to teach the critical thinking behind planning for the middle-game after a T.N. by either oneself or the opponent! 

My opening preparation is so extensive that many times I find a "new move" from an opponent when only a few occurences of the move are in the master DB, less than 10 .  In that case, I do not trust the database and go immediately into critical analysis of the position!

Your chess teacher,  Sam

ok mr. sam musil.  from what I read from all your articles, here's my mini-review:

what i dont' like - your analyses that center around occuring in # of master games.

 

what I REALLY like - your analyses that explain your thinking behind the moves. What i found was that these occured after a T.N. occurred - although I would have liked it even more if you explained the "book" moves also.

 

your insight on the threat of Bb4 was just great. If I had to compare your play with anybody, it would be Capablanca for preciseness and patience.